Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 423

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Analysis of multiple pulse NMR in solids. II

Rhim, W.-K., Elleman, D. D., Schreiber, L. B., Vaughan, R. W.·1974·The Journal of Chemical Physics

Abstract

A systematic method, an extension of the average Hamiltonian formalism, is presented for calculating the effects of pulse errors and imperfections in the multiple pulse nuclear magnetic resonance experiments. Application of this method to account for effects of pulse nonidealities such as phase errors, phase transient effects, pulse size errors, and rf inhomogeneity is found to agree with experimental observation, and the results furnish a basis for understanding the complex couplings between the pulse errors and other interactions such as the dipolar and the chemical shift Hamiltonians.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1063/1.1680944

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 423

Metadata

Authors
Rhim, W.-K., Elleman, D. D., Schreiber, L. B., & Vaughan, R. W.
Venue
The Journal of Chemical Physics
Published
1974-06-01
Volume
60
Issue
11
Pages
4595-4604
ISSN
  • 0021-9606 (ISSN-L)
  • 1089-7690
OpenAlex
W2071674986
Cited by
423
References
0
FWCI
10.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Analysis of multiple pulse NMR in solids. II. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1063/1.1680944
The paper
Rhim, W.-K., Elleman, D. D., Schreiber, L. B., & Vaughan, R. W. (1974). Analysis of multiple pulse NMR in solids. II. The Journal of Chemical Physics. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1680944

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.